17.C Comments on WS

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.149  Thursday, 13 April 2017


From:        John Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 11, 2017 at 9:56:18 AM EDT

Subject:    17.C Comments on WS


Forgive me if someone has mentioned this item. I just became aware of an Antiques Roadshow article on a newly-discovered seventeenth-century notebook of comments on Shakespeare:




The notebook seems to me to be quite an extraordinary discovery.


John Cox

Hope College


[Editor’s Note: I agree with John that this is an extraordinary find, and I have appended the following articles about it. –Hardy]


From BBC:



Shakespearean pad stuns Antiques Roadshow on Caversham Park episode

1 April 2017


A 17th Century notebook analysing the work of William Shakespeare has been described as "extraordinary" by an Antiques Roadshow expert.


The tiny pad was appraised by manuscripts specialist Matthew Haley during an episode filmed at Caversham Park in Berkshire.


The programme will air on Sunday at 20:00 BST on BBC One.



From The Telegraph



Notebook written by unknown 17th-century William Shakespeare scholar leaves Antiques Roadshow expert 'trembling'

2 APRIL 2017 


17th-century notebook containing the jottings of perhaps the world’s first Shakespeare scholar has left experts “trembling” in anticipation of what it may contain.


Entitled Shakespeare: Comedies and Tragedies, it was discovered among the collection of 18th Century antiquarian John Loveday of Caversham by a relative.


Matthew Haley, head of books and manuscripts at Bonhams, appraised the item for Antiques Roadshow, filmed at Caversham Park, Berkshire.

He said it was likely to fetch more than £30,000 at auction, and admitted that its “enormous scholarly value” had left him “trembling” as he held it at.

He said: “It’s a very small manuscript, a tiny little notebook about the size of a matchbox, and it’s in a 17th-century hand.


“We don’t know who the person who wrote it is, but obviously if it’s a 17th-century hand they were either going along to Shakespeare’s plays when they were being performed and taking notes, or they were reading one of the first four printed editions of Shakespeare, which is really amazing.


“Curiously, it doesn’t include the histories, and one could speculate as to why that is.


“As far as I could see the author was writing down quotes, passages or phrases that he liked.


“I noticed a quote from Twelfth Night, but I would imagine that it covers quite a large number of the plays.


“If he was working from the printed texts then by the mid-17th century all of Shakespeare’s plays were known about, although the books were not printed in huge quantities.”


“Obviously there weren’t that many people who were literate at the time and there weren’t that many people who would have had access to the printed editions of Shakespeare. It’s such a fascinating mystery.


“English literature as a subject didn’t come up until around 1900. Nobody was studying literature in that way, and particularly not plays. Prose and poetry were seen as slightly more scholarly or highbrow.


“Nobody started to edit Shakespeare’s works in an academic way or comparing texts until the 18th century. Shakespeare was known as the national playwright and the national poet, he’d acquired some sort of mythological status by that point, but people weren’t looking at him in an academic, analytical way. But maybe this note-taker was.


Mr Haley said the document, which is being transcribed, may provide evidence that not all of Shakespeare’s plays were written by the Bard himself in their entirety, while the lines quoted my differ from those in use today.


“I’m sure that very close study of it would identify quotes from some plays that are not necessarily all Shakespeare.


“It might be that he quotes something that appears in the 1632 second folio that doesn’t appear in the 1623 first”.



From The Mirror



'Extraordinary' Shakespeare notebook leaves Antiques Roadshow expert visibly trembling during its valuation


He gushed over the object for some time during the episode, filmed at Caversham Park


By Nicola Oakley

4 APR 2017


An expert on Antiques Roadshow admitted his hands were “trembling” when he was shown an incredibly rare 17th century antique.


The tiny notepad, containing notes on Shakespeare’s plays from the time they were performed, was brought in by a man who believes one of his ancestors owned the book as part of his impressive library.


It is then thought to have been passed down through the family, with the gentleman finding it in his own mother’s belongings.


Specialist Matthew Haley gushed over the item during the episode, which was filmed at Caversham Park.


“Sometimes the best things come in small packages. My goodness is this a good thing,” he said.


He described how the notepad was written in a 17th century hand by someone making notes in the same century as Shakespeare lived and wrote.


“He’s copying out quotes from various Shakespeare plays. This is incredible. The binding is amazing.


“There is so much research that can be done on this item. It’s absolutely extraordinary. My hands are trembling now, just looking at it.”


He went on to explain that because the value to scholarship was so enormous, the commercial value also had to be great, eventually predicting the tiny pad would fetch more than £30,000 at auction.


Why is it so valuable?


Haley believes the document, which is currently being transcribed, might well prove that Shakespeare’s plays weren’t completely written by the Bard himself.


It’s also remarkable that anyone was editing his work at this time.


He said: “Nobody started to edit Shakespeare’s works in an academic way or comparing texts until the 18th century.


“Shakespeare was known as the national playwright and the national poet, he’d acquired some sort of mythological status by that point, but people weren’t looking at him in an academic, analytical way. But maybe this note-taker was.




Texts of King Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.148  Wednesday, 12 April 2017


[1] From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         April 4, 2017 at 1:48:21 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Texts of King Lear


[2] From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         April 4, 2017 at 6:07:51 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Texts of King Lear


[3] From:        Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         April 4, 2017 at 10:02:28 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Texts of King Lear


[4] From:        Gerald E. Downs  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         April 7, 2017 at 3:17:06 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: Texts of King Lear


[5] From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         April 4, 2017 at 2:26:28 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: Texts of King Lear


[6] From:        Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         April 3, 2017 at 5:39:42 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: Texts of King Lear




From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 4, 2017 at 1:48:21 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Texts of King Lear


it’s almost compulsory for the killer or monster to appear to die at the end before popping back up unexpectedly to start attacking again. It’s a cheap thrill the studios like to provide for the audiences. I conceive of Shakespeare as being better than that.


Of course, and that’s why the poignancy of allowing Lear his final delusion is so much better than Q’s alternative.  The audience is not fooled, and they “confront the tragedy of Cordelia’s death without remission”; but they are also permitted to consider that Lear might have been granted the mercy of believing his child was still alive.  Shakespeare was showman enough to realize that even in tragedy the audience wanted some redeeming grace.  That was probably why Nahum Tate’s version was preferred for almost 300 years.  Perhaps Shakespeare gave us the ending of The Winter’s Tale, reversing Greene’s story, to make amends for doing the opposite to The True Chronicle History of King Leir.  According to the Oxford editors’ chronology, WT was written shortly before the Lear “revision.”



From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 4, 2017 at 6:07:51 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Texts of King Lear


Pervez Rizvi writes of the ending of Shakespeare’s King Lear:


. . . I ask people to put themselves in the position of someone who doesn't already know the play and imagine they are watching the Folio text being performed. On hearing these words would you not sit up and think that, perhaps, Cordelia is not dead as you had thought and a happy ending of sorts is possible after all? And then you realise, as the other actors fail to respond to Lear's words, that it was a false hope. This very quick rollercoaster ride seems to me to detract rather than add to our experience at the end of the play.


Each of us is entitled to prefer one ending over another.  But to declare one ending impossible because we prefer another is hubris and serious editors try to avoid that.  In all preceding versions of the story, Cordelia does not die, so we should be particularly cautious about what we think we know of the first audience’s expectations and how Shakespeare might have played upon them.


Gabriel Egan



From:        Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 4, 2017 at 10:02:28 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Texts of King Lear


Unless and until our readers understand how “Here’s France and Burgundy my noble lord” in LEAR 1.1 may be spoken by “Glo” = Gloucester, as called for in Q, or as in F “Cor”=Cornwall, and maybe (even mo’ betta’) “Cor” =Cordelia, then we as educators and as guardians of the treasures of our culture just ain’t doing our jobs.


Hmm!  Well, maybe.  But I’m not sure that “understand” is quite the word here.  In a sense, obviously, Prof Urquartowitz is right - we ought to know it, and not conceal it from others; but this knowledge may also be a distraction.  How does this variation affect our response to the whole sequence?  It enriches our sense of - what?  Textual possibilities?  Textual instability?  But what of the dramatic movement of the scene?  Isn’t something lost if one is pushed, at such a point, into “imaginative flexibility”?  If this were your play, would you want readers thinking about this, here?   This isn’t, clearly, to say that a two-text version isn’t valuable; only that there are drawbacks to it too, and an argument for conflation - imperfect as it may be.


It’s good for readers to see that Shakespeare ain’t Disney.  He paints OUTSIDE the lines sometimes.


But since we don’t know whose painting GLO vs. COR represents, how does this uncertainty show that?


Dr. Rizvi: I don’t agree, at all.  No one watching the scene would imagine that Cordelia was about to pop up again; I think most people would wonder, if fleetingly, what exactly Lear thought he saw - and perhaps whether he did.  An autobiographical note (excuse me): my grandfather, aged 97, was observed talking in an empty room; he explained that he was talking to my grandmother, who had recently died.  He said: “I can see her.  You don’t know.”


The oldest hath borne most.  Who knows what he saw?





From:        Gerald E. Downs  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 7, 2017 at 3:17:06 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: Texts of King Lear


P W M Blayney refers indirectly to foul proofing in his PBSA review of Sir Brian Vickers’s The One King Lear but he had convincingly argued (‘82) that Q1 formes were corrected before their printing began. The process left no variant formes (corrected and uncorrected, as results from stop-press correction). However, foul proofing can be in evidence and textual analysis may profit by it. For example, Blayney describes correction “when it was noticed on C2v that an entrance for Edgar had been omitted (perhaps never in the copy . . .)” by having Enter Edgar set as a shoulder note” (81). The same correction applies to entrances on D3v and F3r, which would normally not occur in seriatim setting. (Speedy stenography would usually omit set directions. Q1’s inadequate directions seem to be inferred). Blayney asserts that as Okes made these corrections, he “is not a printer who would deliberately cut” substantial amounts of text. But how would foul proofing deal with text that was accidentally omitted?


Blayney properly concludes that Q1 printers filled many pages with prose and verse-as-prose to save space-metal; further, they usually increased the right margins with “quotation quads” to set verse as verse. Because these methods resulted in densely filled forms, omissions discovered by foul proofing against copy may have required special efforts in restoration. Blayney and Vickers describe methods to compress text: abbreviations, ampersands, turn-downs, numerals, close spacing, and other tools were commonly employed. While Vickers argues they (and minor cuts) were habitual paper-savers, Blayney shows that such Q1 usage is often merely applied to minor exigencies for convenience. However, I suggest that multiple, localized usage constitutes a sort of bibliographical indication of restored omission. To be significant, that notion requires a relatively large amount of evidence.


I believe Q1 compositors were plagued by inadvertent omissions. Elsewhere I have cited The Descent of Manuscripts (1906) by A. C. Clark, who begins Chapter One with an instructive statement: “There are certain forms of error to which all copyists are liable. The most fertile and insidious of these is generally known as omissio ex homoeoteleuto. The eye of the writer wanders from a particular word, or portion of a word, to a similar word, or portion of a word, elsewhere in the context, with the result that the intervening words are omitted. . . . Frequently the similarity comes at the beginning, not at the end . . .” (1). “Eyeskip” can be caused by pairs of phrases, speech headings, and other variations of the trap, in verse and in prose. It accounts for short and long omissions. Victims will not know it has occurred until later, if at all. Repair must wait on foul proofing (or analogous discovery). In reference to the casting off of Folio text, Blayney observes that “miscalculation could lead to unavoidable omissions” (72). With the same result, eyeskip could “insidiously” lead to otherwise avoidable omissions, either “permanent” (if there is no room in the forme), or restorable at the risk of visible disruption to the text already typeset. An eyeskip omission may also be incorrectly restored, or revised to accommodate the forme.


Eyeskip may be indicated by its cause, the repeated words or phrases. In manuscript, the interlined or marginal restorations will preserve words at one end identical to words in the body of the texts, where on repair reoccurring words will once more occupy both ends of the restoration. These words also seem to be evidence of a bibliographical nature, which doesn’t rely on meaning but on reoccurring “marks on paper.” If printed text is significantly disrupted by compression associated with repeated words, eyeskip may be inferred. Inferences may be wrong. Two examples follow:


With shady forrests , and [with Champains rich’d

With plenteous Riuers] and wide skirted meades,

We make thee Lady . . . (Q1, 1.1.65)


The bracketed line occurs only in F. Because ‘and w’ reoccurs, with . . . Riuers and one and may have been omitted by eyeskip from Q1. If so, it is restored in F (by reference to Q1 copy or to independent F copy.) Otherwise, the line is a revision—but as often with F’s short additions, the line is rather pointless as a revision. If the line was omitted in Q1, the corrector may not have thought it was worth restoring. However, there is simply not enough evidence here to infer either omission or revision.


York. [Anjou and Maine are given to the French;

[[Paris is lost . . .

Unto the prince’s heart of Calydon.]

Anjou and Maine both given unto the French!]]

Cold news for me . . . (2H6, F 215 – 238, modernized, Arden2)


Lines 215 – 236 are not in Q (Contention, the bad quarto). They may have been cut deliberately at some point in time, or revised at another. But eyeskip omission of 22 lines caused by nearly identical phrasing is easily possible. There’s a similar range in King Lear. I’ll try to show that many verse lines were omitted and restored to Q1 by foul proofing. Verse can be, and was, squashed. Prose omission is perhaps harder to spot and more telling; Okes & Co. hadn’t much room to play with. My feeling: Okes preserved copy he couldn’t restore but it got to F from the Q1 manuscript redaction that both Blayney and Stone deduce.


Gerald E. Downs 



From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 4, 2017 at 2:26:28 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: Texts of King Lear


John Briggs responded:


Like Julia Griffin I am also baffled by Gerald E. Downs’s quotation of “Peter Blayney’s ‘authorized’ belief” . . . . (I would really like to know what was in the brackets and elision - Jerry Downs has the knack of making other peoples’ writings as cryptic as his own!)


Because my postings hog Hardy’s corner of cyberspace I cut them before sending, much as Vickers presumes of Okes. The last two lost 300 words each. Long quotes turn dotty, as do my contributions. I appreciate John’s intelligent approach to the issues. Here is what Blayney OK’d me to report, which I’ve posted more than once to this forum:


Blayney believes “that Q1’s copy was an authorial manuscript; that the adaptation was made by someone other than Shakespeare from the printed Q1 rather than from a playhouse manuscript of any kind; and that F1 was printed from a manuscript (either the adapter’s final draft annotated for promptbook use or a promptbook prepared from it) with the assistance (primarily for punctuation) of a copy of Q2. But while it may be useful for people to know that the author of volume 1 [The Texts of ‘King Lear’] does believe those things, until or unless he explains why he does they should of course allow that he might be wrong.” I’m hoping that Blayney will elaborate further.


[M]y puzzlement stems from the fact that in 1996 Peter Blayney contributed an Introduction to the second edition of the Norton Facsimile. Here he gave an updated table of compositor attributions for the Folio. This largely corresponds to that given by P.W.K. Stone (Stone was working from Hinman’s original version) and shows the division of the typesetting of Lear between Compositors B and E. Stone demonstrates that Compositor E worked exclusively from a copy of Q2 (probably the Jaggard print shop file copy, presumably marked up by reference to the MS) and that Compositor B set largely from the MS, which for some reason couldn’t be broken up to be divided between the two compositors. (The MS appears to be a transcription of a copy of Q1 corrected and revised - as two separate operations, quite possibly by two different people.) This is by far the simplest explanation for Q2 being part of the “ancestry” of the F text - so why doesn’t Blayney mention it?


Blayney essentially repeats his take on E in his review essay, though he allows E more use of Q2 text itself. Recalling the independence of these two truly gifted scholars, my belief meets them halfway. Stone was troubled with Hinman’s conclusion that F compositor B set quire ss—but not enough to question Hinman. Howard-Hill shortly assigned ss to E, which would appeal much more to Stone as the influence of Q2 is evident. For some reason, some obvious Q2 presence in F is dismissed by Stone. On the other hand, he plausibly asserts that “those portions of the text which would entail especially heavy correction of [Q2] were left, wherever possible, [to] B, who held the manuscript [derived from Q1]” (140).


I suppose (as John may agree) that each compositor held both manuscript copy and exemplars of Q2; that B set more from handwritten copy; and that E used Q2 extensively to help decipher and to neglect the manuscript as necessary, with blessings. I think this arrangement allowed a close watch over E by foul proofing, when the texts could be reconciled if need be. E’s training was more important than fidelity to a text far removed from the author or his concerns. Close study of Stone’s evidence allows no doubt that Q2 and Q1 each contribute to F. He also shows that another faulty source probably played a role: Q1 printer’s copy. Throughout, Q error shows up in F to preclude authorial revision. Moreover, the very fact that Q2 could be so effectively utilized indicates F derivation from Q1 itself. I don’t think Blayney’s analysis ever got as far as Stone’s and at this point in time any new look must rely heavily on the latter.


I hypothesize that Q1 was redacted, ultimately, with two aims: first, a corrected edition was anticipated, including recovery of omissions from Q1 and revision as the spirit moved; second, F intended “absolute numbers” (meter) and alterations to disguise the bad quarto ancestry. How and when is hard to say, but it would have begun with the printing of Q1 and preservation of its copy, probably in a running redaction of Q1 itself.


Gerald E. Downs



From:        Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 3, 2017 at 5:39:42 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: Texts of King Lear


Steve Urkowitz wrote:


In response to Jim Carroll’s note on the feather in LEAR . . . Ron Rosenbaum must have been referring to the two lines only in F after Lear says, Thank you Sir” “Do you see this? Looke on her?  Looke her lips, / Looke there, looke there.” He dies. An actor could have the feather from TLN 3227 (real or imagined) stirring again, or he could be prompted by something else.  But whatever the indicated “this” and “there” we are commanded to look at,


That’s really misleading to a reader who doesn’t know the details, and thinks that someone actually added the feather to the scene. I’ve never thought the feather had anything to do with those last lines of Lear; there are about 50 lines and about 370 words separating “feather” from “Look at this”. “This” is just the dead Cordelia whom he imagines is moving her lips, and then he asks the others to look at her lips. Pervez Rivzi wants to believe it detracts from the drama, at least for the purposes of his argument, but to me it increases the change we watch in Lear from the man in command at the beginning of the play to the helpless onlooker at the end. It seems utterly appropriate for Shakespeare to make that change.


The Stone/Briggs explanation for Q2 and its relation to F1 makes me ask: Where’s the leprechaun? Two compositors? Q2 is essentially a corrected copy of Q1, where minor changes have been made such as the addition of “she” to 3.6.47. No, you don’t have to violate Carroll’s razor and bring in another author. Every edition, Q1, Q2 and F1 had its printers/typesetters who made corrections along the way, they were always there. One thing that these commentators with their crazy schemes never seem to consider is that a different person might make the same correction! If there were an obvious error in Q1, both the person setting Q2 and the person setting F1 may have made the same correction, without the F1 compositor ever seeing Q2.


As for Gerald Downs...he seems to want to whisper negative innuendoes about every difference in the text, without ever concluding anything definite, that is, when I can make sense of him at all. Maybe this, maybe that.... Maybe there was a Q1 by Shakespeare, then a Q2 corrected copy of it, and maybe Shakespeare before he died corrected and altered Q1 as he saw fit, and that is the manuscript the F1 producers used. I haven’t seen any argument even remotely convincing to suggest otherwise. As for all the stuff about commas and semicolons, I suggest anyone look at Hand D of Thomas More to see the kinds of things Shakespeare left out and/or corrected. Here is the passage with “fortune bragd” in the so-called Halliwell-Phillipps “perfect” version of Q1:




and here is the Halliwell-Phillipps “alternate” version of the same passage in Q1:




If anyone can tell me what Gerald Downs is talking about...be my guest. Those excerpts are from the uvic page at http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/


Jim Carroll




Reported Texts

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.147  Wednesday, 12 April 2017


From:        Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 9, 2017 at 7:30:05 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Reported Texts


Last month I suggested that readers interested in Shakespeare’s revising practices might benefit from looking at the parallel passages of the final scene in Q and F Merry Wives of Windsor where Fenton and Ann Page return from their marriage. I have proposed that the alternative readings are both Shakespearean, and F represents Shakespeare’s revision of Q.  But John Briggs waves readers off like a cop at a fender-bender, suggesting instead that they immerse themselves in the to-ing and fro-ing of textual hypotheses.


Merry Wives is a bad example to choose: Q is long recognised as a reported text (it is the shortest of the Short Quartos - in this politically correct age we are not allowed to say ‘Bad Quarto’) and F is a transcript by Ralph Crane. Giorgio Melchiori (Arden3) says that Crane was editing from at least two texts; so not everyone agrees that there weren’t multiple texts - none of which may have been authorial.


Maybe indeed neither of the underlying texts behind what someone provided for the 1602 Quarto and that copied by Crane used to set the Folio were “really” Shakespeare-inscribed manuscripts, but whoever chose their words is worthy of our closest attention (that is, IF we are more interested in theatrical action than we are in stenography, typesetting, or hypothetical printing-house economics).  They show us not just different but wonderfully different stage actions.


Despite John Briggs’ citing of august authorities, I still invite the SHAKSPER gang to look at the early printed documents, not at the summaries or explanations of them.   (And, John, it isn’t some misguided political correctness to call the “bad” quartos something like “the early printed versions.”  It’s really an understanding that pejorative nomenclature matters and affects cognition directly, something that we learned from the bullies in the schoolyard and from the judges we address as Your Honor.  Sneering don’t help understanding.)


John’s rhetoric, like Brian Vickers’, prejudices a reader by casting my position as if it were merely passing-fashionable.  No big deal; folks believed nonsense about Shakespearean texts in the past, and they still do, and they will continue to. Vickers in his ONE KING LEAR screed carries on the same kind of “non-argument from authority” when he cites the negative reviews of the LEAR revision case as if those opinions should outweigh the data offered in our presentations.


Typically, I’ll show five or six instances of a peculiarly “authorial” textual variant, something unlike anything generated by other textual inscribers like compositors or hypothetical steno reporters. Vickers (and other revision-deniers) typically will superficially challenge a single instance of a proposed authorial-revision-pattern and then ignore the accumulated weight of repeated usages. I in my usually cock-eyed-optimistic way have identified those patterned changes as Shakespearean revisions.   Of course, if you don’t look at them in place and in series, they won’t convince.  So go look.  Be convinced.  


As a community, we maintain our grasp on reality if and only if we go back to check the data offered in competing arguments.


Methodology differs between scientific argumentation and what we get from the Old Guard Defenders of Unitary Events of Authorial Composition.  Scientific argument asks you to look and look again and again at evidence and its contexts and their fit into different explanatory boxes.  The Vickers model tells you instead to look at what august figures said, “Forget about looking at the data highlighted by the irreverent passing-fancy upstarts.”  That ain’t how knowledge works, but it sure resembles exactly the autocracies that Shakespeare held up to obloquy.


Urkquartowitz the (Self-)Righteous, after SAA Atlanta but before Passover 2017




Steve Urkowitz's Pseudonyms

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.146  Tuesday, 11 April 2017


From:        Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 3, 2017 at 7:17:26 PM EDT

Subject:    Steve Urkowitz's Pseudonyms


Has anyone ever compiled a comprehensive directory of Steve Urkowitz's pseudonyms or noms de list?  :-)




Not the Year's Work in English Studies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.145  Tuesday, 11 April 2017


From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Subject:    Re: Not the Year's Work in English Studies


Editor’s Note: Many have called to my attention that the links in Gabriel Egan’s post “Not the Year's Work in English Studies” did not work. I have apologized to Gabriel and corrected the links in the archive. I normally check all links, but I was in a hurry and did not do so this time. Below is a corrected version of that posting.




The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.141  Friday, 3 April 2017


From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         April 1, 2017 at 8:26:47 AM EDT

Subject:    Not the Year's Work in English Studies


From 2000 to 2016 I wrote the “Shakespeare: Editions and Textual Studies” annual review for the Year’s Work in English Studies published by Oxford University Press. In 2016 I was asked to stand down and so gave up the review, but I continue to attempt to read and evaluate everything published in this field. Since the discipline of formally reviewing scholarship is the best way to make sense of it, I decided to continue writing an annual review and to self-publish it on my website. I am grateful to Ed Pechter for serving as my editor for this new review, saving me from dozens of infelicities and improving the sense in many places. I would be interested to hear from any readers who find this review useful.


The review is called Not the Year’s Work in English Studies and it

appears at:




The most recent review is for work published in 2015. My YWES reviews

of scholarship published in previous years are available at:





Gabriel Egan



Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.